1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
23 
three connittees that have been involved in this. We 
had an AJ Hoc Connitteo that reviewed the initial 
guidelines, with continued reviewing and contributing 
to this process; a Puolic Affairs Connitteo which, to- 
gether with other scientific societies, has tried to 
develop consensus positions regarding regulation of the 
research; and a Working Panel that is involved in trying 
to reconnend training procedures for conducting recon- 
binant research. In addition, wo have solicited widely 
to have our members give their views. 
I have subnitted sone details of this in a 
letter to hr. Fredrickson which, with your permission, we 
hope will be part of the record. 
What I would like to do today is to concentrate 
on five separate topics that reflect in part the consensus 
we have established with other scientific societies. 
First, regarding development of the guidelines 
themselves, in testimony before congressional committees we 
have argued that the guidelines as periodically reviewed 
are appropriate for governing research on reconoinant DMA. 
Vie oelieve that the experience of the last few years justi- 
fies this approach. We applaud the excellent job that the 
Director and his staff at r.'Iil and the Recombinant DN’A 
Advisory Connitteo have done in developing the rev ised 
guidelines . 
[115] 
